2006 (9) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. Notice dated 6-10-1986 was issued to the appellant proposing to recover full duty on the works contract orders of various projects for period from 1-3-1986 to 31-8-1986 which included recoveries made on account of installation erection and commission charges. The notice also proposed to deny S.S.I., exempt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not required to be included in the determination of assessable value. The Commissioner adjudicated the matter once again vide order dated 15-5-98 confirming the same amount of duty without issuing any other notice. 3. Similar disputes were raised in the past which culminated in order-in-appeal which indicated the appellants paid duty on parts manufactured by them by adopting costing basis i.e. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther the machinery that comes into existence at sites is goods or immovable property. The ratio of Apex Court s judgment in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills as relied on by Revenue is therefore totally out of context. The ld. Commissioner reliance is totally distinguished and this decision of the Apex Court has not been subsequently followed in the case of Quality Steel Tubes Ltd. - 1995 (75) E.L.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X